Doing a bit more of a look on the RLM, I found this[1] where they (mis)write the relation between inertial and rest mass. Specifically the gamma^3 factor ...
I've been out of physics for more than 20 years, so it's possible that there has been some new development since my Ph.D. Though 2 additional factors of gamma in special relativity aren't likely.
Color me ... skeptical.
I did follow their Einstein paper reference[2] to see if I had missed something. I didn't. I don't understand the origin of their 2 extra gammas in eqn 1 of the first reference. The paper abstract appears to be a continuation of that work.
From what I could determine, they need the gamma^3 term for their arguments, but it doesn't come from Einstein's paper as they claimed.
Again, I could be missing something, but I don't think I am.
[1] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/738/1/0...
It appears the current article is claiming the the inertial / gravitational mass of certain particles is gamma^3 times the rest mass of relativistic neutrinos that comprise them. Or something.
They should. The source of gravity in relativity is not relativistic mass, as this paper appears to be claiming. It is the stress-energy tensor.
Also, the reference to "Newton's relativistic gravitational law" in the abstract looks bogus to me. There is no such thing. You can't just plug relativistic mass into Newton's gravitational law. Any GR textbook will discuss this.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.09760
Very novel :-/
edit: They have published a book. One can read the preview on Amazon to get a feel for it:
https://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Special-Relativity-Strong-Boh...
They aren't attracting any citations.
Not sure what you mean, but just in case: the "2001" part in "2001.09760" is two-digit year followed by two-digit month, i.e. January 2020.
Professor Vayenas is a distinguished chemist, and his work looks rather like a blend of Old Quantum Theory and particle physics, so I suppose it's an uphill fight for him. However, Bohr did get a lot, e.g. the hydrogen spectrum, from a simple assumption, and Vayenas is trying to follow the same path.
The papers he's published are relatively accessible and full of startling calculations that result in close agreement with experimental results. They make interesting reading, and I haven't found anything so far that would cause me to reject them out of hand.
From the conclusion of the current paper: "Another emerging conclusion is that neutrinos, electrons, positrons and photons are present in all composite particles and are apparently the only undividable [sic] elementary particles."
https://cheme.stanford.edu/events/colloquium-constantinos-g-...
For comparison, in the Standard Model, the proton is made of two up quarks an one down quark [1]. Each of the has spin 1/2, and the composite particle must have a non integer spin: 1/2 or 3/2 in this case. The proton is the one with spin 1/2. The version with spin 3/2 is the Delta+ particle, that is a 30% "heavier".
[There are other technical details, like if the three rotating neutrinos break the Pauli exclusion principle for neutrinos. I suspect that this is a problem, but I'm not sure. The inclusion of the Higgs boson is very strange. Anyway, the total spin is the easier to explain and check.]
[1] And a bunch of gluons of spin 0 and virtual particles that get compensated and don't affect the total spin. Let's use the naïve version with only three quarks.
[1] "Flavors" may not be the right word. I don't remember what the right one is at the moment.
Spin is more complicated! That the reason that force the sum of the four 1/2 spin particles to have spin 0, 1 or 2. It has a nice mathematical reason that is the SU(2) group representations.
All the experiments so far agree with this rules. The rule for four 1/2 particles can be tested with electron in small molecules or light atoms. The extension to other amount of electron and particles with spin 1/2 have also been tested. (The technical name is "fermions", IIRC this includes also particles with spin 3/2.)
The theory includes also rules for particles with spin 1 (like the photon), and the extended rules also agree with the experiments. I'd be more surprised that the rules for spin have to be changed than the other claims in this paper (that are also quite surprising).
https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2019.1236...
The table 1 they have a lot of baryons, each of them has two numbers nB and lB. These are small numbers like 1, 2 , 3 so they are not very fudgable. The problem is that the numbers are somewhat arbitrary. For example it's not clear how these numbers are related to the spin of the particle. Also it's not clear how they are related to the "strangeness". Both are clear an easy to measure properties. It looks like they calculate the mass for possible particles with small nB and lB and then they cherrypicked the real one with the closest mass. (There is a missing particle with nB=2 and lB=1. Why?)
All standard particles are composed of AnimAlMuppet's Magic Particles (AMMPs). AMMPs each have 1 eV of mass. An electron, for example, is made up of 511,000 AMMPs. We calculate a mass of 511 keV, in good agreement with experiment.
Note well: I have no idea if these people are doing something like that. All I've seen is the abstract.
The Zitterbewegung Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
The zitterbewegung is a local circulatory motion of the electron presumed to be the basis of the electron spin and magnetic moment. A reformulation of the Dirac theory shows that the zitterbewegung need not be attributed to interference between positive and negative energy states as originally proposed by Schroedinger. Rather, it provides a physical interpretation for the complex phase factor in the Dirac wave function generally. Moreover, it extends to a coherent physical interpretation of the entire Dirac theory, and it implies a zitterbewegung interpretation for the Schroedinger theory as well.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/738/1/0...
Gravity and Inertia...
So maybe they're onto something there...
